Statistics are an often-abused tool in data science. "Fatal shark attacks have risen 100% this year" sounds like an alarming statistic until you realize that only one person was fatally attacked by a shark last year. Check the raw numbers when data visualizations present only the statistics.

I'm always leery of that one, and also of its brother: "People who [insert "dangerous" activity] are [insert relatively small number] times more likely to [insert dire consequence] as people who don't." Well, if it's 1 in 100000 versus [that aforementioned small number] in 100000, it's both true and irrelevant.

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

The only way to really know if an infographic can be trusted is to look for footnotes at the bottom. Footnotes are a real pain in the ass to format, so most people won't bother with them if they're just making a fake one. I mean, they might bother with one or two footnotes, tops, but that will be it. In the vast majority of cases, the following courses of action are appropriate:

Infographic with 3 or more footnotes: better than 90 percent chance of accuracy, use as basis for argumentInfographic with 1-2 footnotes: 50 percent chance of accuracy, post "Citation Needed" picInfographic with 0 footnotes: less than 10 percent chance of accuracy, accuse poster of trolling

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

Generally, we can trust data provided by:•Government organizations•University research laboratories•Nonpartisan organizationsAnd we should look more closely at data provided by:•For-profit companies•Partisan organizations•Advocacy groupsIf the data source isn't listed, take the data visualization with many grains of salt.

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

Generally, we can trust data provided by:•Government organizations•University research laboratories•Nonpartisan organizationsAnd we should look more closely at data provided by:•For-profit companies•Partisan organizations•Advocacy groupsIf the data source isn't listed, take the data visualization with many grains of salt.

What if your government organizations, University research laboratories, and "Nonpartisan" organizations are, in fact, partisan and advocating towards a specific agenda?

dittybopper:Because People in power are Stupid: dittybopper: I am telling a lie.

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

Pocket Ninja:The only way to really know if an infographic can be trusted is to look for footnotes at the bottom. Footnotes are a real pain in the ass to format, so most people won't bother with them if they're just making a fake one. I mean, they might bother with one or two footnotes, tops, but that will be it. In the vast majority of cases, the following courses of action are appropriate:

Infographic with 3 or more footnotes: better than 90 percent chance of accuracy, use as basis for argumentInfographic with 1-2 footnotes: 50 percent chance of accuracy, post "Citation Needed" picInfographic with 0 footnotes: less than 10 percent chance of accuracy, accuse poster of trolling

You said "Infographic" three times. I'm not accusing you of trolling; I just think you must really like "Infographic".